Leckie v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-06719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leckie v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe granted the requests to amend the complaint and adjourn the conference.
The order affected Darrel Leckie, the unidentified and newly named Department of Corrections and Community Supervision medical providers, and the defendants whose consent was reported. It also postponed the initial conference.
What happened
Leckie v. City of New York concerns the plaintiff’s request to replace unidentified Department of Corrections and Community Supervision medical providers with their names and service information.
The plaintiff said those identities and addresses were obtained through subpoenas and requested 30 days to amend the complaint and serve the providers. The plaintiff also asked to postpone the initial conference until after the parties had joined issue, and the defendants consented.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the application. The order therefore allowed the requested amendment, service, and postponement, but it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Leckie v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06719
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 17, 2019
Background
The plaintiff’s counsel asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend the complaint by replacing unidentified John and Jane Doe Department of Corrections and Community Supervision medical providers with their names. Counsel also asked to serve those individuals at upstate correctional facilities and to postpone the initial conference scheduled for December 19, 2019, until after the parties had joined issue. Counsel stated that the City and Health and Hospitals Corporation defendants consented.
The letter said the court had previously approved subpoenas seeking the identities and service addresses of the medical providers identified by numbers. After additional information and documents were provided, counsel said the identities and addresses were disclosed on December 10, 2019. The proposed substitutions were Khondkar Rakib, D.D.S., for medical provider #703; Jordan Laguio, M.D., for medical providers #1-4; and Debbie Napoli, R.N., for medical provider #280. The plaintiff also submitted a proposed amended complaint and summonses.
Rule and Analysis
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that a party may amend a pleading with the court’s permission and that permission should generally be freely given when justice requires. The opinion states that amendment may be denied for reasons such as futility, undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or undue prejudice. It concludes that the plaintiff diligently sought disclosure and amendment, had identified the providers by medical identification numbers in the original pleadings, and had viable, legally cognizable claims against them.
Disposition
The court granted the application. The opinion does not separately state a different disposition for each requested item, but the application sought 30 days to amend the complaint, serve the named providers, and adjourn the initial conference. This order addressed case administration and amendment of the pleadings; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.